I knew you were saying he was a good president, I was agreeing to a point, but showing how he was also quite bad and dishonest at the same time, much different from Dr. Paul.
We agree on socialized medicine being bad, but I don’t see why any company pays for any part of health insurance, it’s a crock. Do they pay my home-owners/renters insurance? Should my employer should pay my auto insurance too? That’s why salaries are being driven down, the cost of doing business keeps going up.
If we reduced entitlement programs to prevent the current abuses and lowered taxes accordingly we would all be better off.
Almost everything Ron Paul stands for I agree with. (~~ foreign policy)
That said, even if elected, he would only be President, not a dictator. He would still have to deal with the MORONS we have in congress and therefore would be limited in what he could accomplish.
He will probably NOT get the Republican nomination.
If the grass-roots support is great enough, (and I think it probably will be) he could run as a third-party candidate.
Since he is running on the same conservative principles as the Republican candidate IS SUPPOSED TO BE, it will split the conservative vote and elect the Democratic candidate.
This would be very, very bad for our country no matter which socialist, communist, piece of shit the Democrats nominate.
So, to sum it all up, Ron Paul would absolutely make the best possible President in 08, but in attempting to do so, he will probably destroy our country.
I completely disagree. Dr. Paul has expressed no interest in a 3rd party candidacy. Should he pursue one, he is against the war, the patriot act and the National ID card, these principles appeal to many “democrats” or “liberals.” Both parties have abandoned their roots, not just the Republicans.
Here’s where we almost agree:
If the best candidate actually does destroy the country by running for office, I don’t think he is the source of the problem. In fact, if this country is that close to the brink, anything that brings about reform sooner, would be a good thing.
My goal with posting the CNN article was to stir up some good discussion. Looks like I’ve been sucessful.
I completely disagree. Dr. Paul has expressed no interest in a 3rd party candidacy. Should he pursue one, he is against the war, the patriot act and the National ID card, these principles appeal to many “democrats” or “liberals.” Both parties have abandoned their roots, not just the Republicans.
Good response. Libertarianism is the absolute center of the political spectrum, the true middle point- and as such it attracts folks from both sides.
Do I agree with all things “Libertarian”? No, not even close; to a certain extent I am a fan of safety nets for we the unorganized, stupid mob and I do happen to like things like public roads, social security, unemployment checks, a strong standing military, public education available for all citizen’s children, ect. That said, Ron’s campaign sure appeals to me strongly on an emotional level. The thought of rolling back all of the years of infringement on our personal freedom…wow.
Either way, I’ll vote for whoever the Republicans run this time (unless it’s Romney. In which case, I don’t yet know what I’ll do).
he has to say that now. He knows as well as you and I that he most likely won’t get the GOP nomination, and that his only real viable shot at the presidency is as an Independent/Libertarian candidate.
Unemployment is a privately funded thing. Paul would not want to do away with it (at least I would believe). He will still fund public roads, a strong standing military, and public education. So where are you finding his faults again?
So is mandatory Employer provided medical insurance, and employer 401k matching. That doesn’t mean it’s any less of a load on employers.
Employers have to match SS contributions too. It’s all a bunch of nanny-state nonsense.
The libertarian stance is to get government out of the economy. Federally mandated programs that force the private sector to set aside money is no better than a tax, just slightly more efficient because the gov doesn’t get their filthy hands on it.
Dr. Paul wants to eliminate the Department of Education. So in a sense “he,” at the federal level, wants to have nothing to do with education funding. In fact, the government has no authorized role in education in the Constitution, which he holds as his stance.
Ron Paul 0wn3d the ridiculous planted Fox question about electability.
I understand, and i mistyped that. Schools will still be funded, just on a state level… as it should be.
You’d be surprised how many Dem’s Ron Paul will sway. He is staunchly anti-war, all about civil liberties, etc. His stance makes sense. He will sway many Dems, especially ones that just cant bring themselves to vote for a black man or a woman.
Many Democrats are concerned with more than just government handouts.
I have talked to many “anti-Republican” people who are pro-Ron Paul.
I will agree that he has a larger base on the R side than on the D side, I mean he is a true Republican. Both major parties are so far gone now that he is able to win people over from all parties and all socioeconomic classes, because of the message.
in order of my lack of reluctance to vote for them:
john edwards
dennis kucinich
bill richardson
barack obama
hillary clinton
mitt romney
john mccain
rudy giuliani
satan
hitler’s corpse
ron paul
fred thompson
mike huckabee
Ron Paul kinda interferes with my firmly held beliefs in a social democrat welfare state, gun control, mandatory abortions, alaskan work camps for dissidents, et cetera…
but seriously, i like the guy a hell of a lot… he’s just about 140° away from me on the political compass.
